Why I love Skyrim

[Black Angel]

No, because that removes PLAYER FREEDOM to explore the world at your leisure. One of the things which makes Skyrim a good game. You don't have to deal with Alduin if you just want to play a thief or a wizard and can ignore that quest if you don't want to play it on your second or third playthrough. Skyrim is a toolbox to make your own fun and journeys--making it more story focused defeats the purpose of having fun your way.

Then Alduin isn't as dangerous as you thought. Skyrim was actually a fucking joke only taken seriously by people who've never actually played video games, then. It made it seems like Alduin was this terrible threat that has to be taken seriously and dealt with ASAP, but the entire game was actually designed so that players can just lollygagging.

At this point you even completely ignore all the arguments about how even the NPCs didn't fucking care about Alduin.

'Dragons', 'World-Eater', my ass.

No, I reject your arguments and think your vision of game design would make a horrible game to me. Killing non-essential NPCs just willy nilly potentially leaves the land barren of interesting side characters.

Then don't create sense of danger/urgency if you thought your target audience would be casuals like you who would reload the moment an NPC died.

Again, I repeat, your sense of danger were false. Alduin is NOT a good villain, at all. Hell, maybe not even a villain, just this side figure with EPIC titles meant to be defeated by players whenever they feel like it and want to feel like a badass.

Truth is, the Dragonborn isn't a badass.

It's like that goddamn awful time limit on finding the Water Chip.

Wait, you SERIOUSLY think the time limits from the original 2 games were a good idea? You're not joking. I thought it was universally recorded as a bad idea, including by Tim Cain. Time limits in video games are HORRIBLE ideas.

I'll turn the question back to you: You SERIOUSLY thought time limits were bad idea AT ALL?

You're a fucking casual. Stop talking about this as if it were bad idea. At large, the RPG Codex accepted the time limit as what made Fallout 1 great in the first place, and even though Tim Cain said it was a 'bad idea', most fans still mourn the fact they were never utilized and explored for newer games these days.

And FYI the time-limit for Fallout 2 doesn't even fucking work like the way it was in Fallout 1. At most, your village starts to change due to starvation if you neglect finding the GECK ASAP, but it doesn't had as much impact as Fallout 1's.

People like you are the reasons why they no longer make games that do time-limit right. Fucking casuals.

You want to let people be able to explore at their leisure.

Only when you want to make games where people can lollygag, not when you create a sense of urgency.

Fallout 1 did it right because the Vault running out of drinking water was important, because in a post-apocalyptic world where everything was dictated by the survival of the fittest, no water = no life. You HAVE to get those Chip ASAP, or fuck off and don't play it if you think it's bad design.

Skyrim was stupid because it made it seems like Alduin was a threat that has to be dealt with ASAP. You even admit that you got this 'sense of danger' and, therefore, sense of urgency to deal with him ASAP. Turns out it was all false, and you can just lollygag to your heart's content.

Like I said, the 'game' was a fucking joke.

Even if they did, I wouldn't want the actual town to cover the entire map. You need to make them smaller so it's easier to traverse them. I, honestly, felt Novigrad was too large to traverse and had way too much in the way of pointless running around streets of houses.

Who the fuck said anything about "the actual town to cover the entire map"? I'm asking for accurate representation of settlements when you're making a game in first/third person.

At this point, you're only shooting yourself in the foot by actually asking Bethesda to keep going the way they are going (using that ancient piece of shit engine making 'open-world' games with loading screen, inaccurate settlements represented by mere two-streets and a handful of NPCs) to compete with actually competent developers who make ACTUALLY open-world games with accurately represented settlements populated by actual population.

Surely, you don't think it only has five or six people from a Vault of 1000, though, do you?

It's a fucking top-down isometric games. They had to creatively work and design the levels and the maps so you'll only get to the important parts. This is the only point where 'technical limitations' arguments works. Might as well argue why they didn't make the Vault like this

Instead of only 3 level of floors.

Bethesda, though, had no fucking excuse because they made their games open-world in first/third person perspective, and the advantage of ~15 years of progress in video game technology. It was their fault and THEIR OWN fault for holding on to that piece of shit engine.

When I went to Cornea as a child in Final Fantasy 1 and saw it only had an Inn, a Clinic, a Potion shop, and a couple of houses, I didn't think it had only five people living there. If I was able to get it at five years old, I certainly was able to get it as an adult.

Still doesn't excuse Skyrim being a piece of shit for using open-world, first/third person perspective but inaccurately represent settlements with mere two streets and a handful of NPCs.

I pity you now.

Please tell me you're joking. That's insane. Nobody would do that and it would be boring to go through, a bad idea from a game stand-point, and require the players to be morons to necessitate. Nobody actually thinks Diamond City has fifty people. Why would they? It's an abstraction and just because it's in 3d doesn't make it any more likely that way.

Whatever floats your boat.

Your entire argument seems to be "railroad them into the main quest because of artificial urgency so there's no point in playing ANY of the side content until the main quest is completed."

No, my argument is that Alduin is a shit villain, and the game is shit because it created this false sense of urgency where the dragons aren't actually a threat because a settlement represented by mere two streets, populated by a handful of NPCs could easily defeat those dragons.

Like I said, the 'game' is a fucking joke.

Nothing I wrote implied that in Skyrim you can do everything in one playthrough. That's like forgetting the entire Skyrim civil war conflict. However if you pretend that it does not exist, then what you're left is a game structured pretty much like Ultima 7, to stick to my example. In TES setting, though. I understand that if you started playing computer games with Fallout series, you might be a bit disappointed.

Sure, but the game was STILL designed for that. You can be a head of ALL the factions, and only the Civil War that allows you to choose side.

Back to the dragons: if not for the Skyrim live action trailer, how would we get the idea that dragons generally should wreak havoc and raze the towns, Smaug style. For those of you that are not familiar with the backstory for Skyrim, it turns out that in the ancient times in Skyrim there was a theocracy worshiping dragons and their chief dragon deity Alduin... They ruled, and what you rule you don't destroy, because then you end up the ruler of some desolation only.

Like I said, live-action trailer =/= the game. The live-action trailer doesn't mean Bethesda made good games, and in no way it means Skyrim was good.

And on-topic of lore, I already knew about the Dragon Priests. It raises many questions, now, such as: Why won't the Dragons raid settlements alongside the Dragon Priests, to force the said settlements to worship Alduin or be destroyed?

Oh, that's right, the game was still designed so that the players can just keep lollygagging, and it was also written by a fucking dumbass.

 

[CT Phipps]

Eh, you like what you like. It's not what I'm interested in, though.

 

[Risewild]

I think CT Phipps prefers sandbox games to cRPGs.
By what I see it is the freedom to do everything the player wants in one playthrough that is fun. But removing restrictions is what a sandbox game is, not a RPG. RPG characters need weaknesses and limits. No one can do everything, old cRPGs always had the option of be the best at something or be a jack of all trades that does not excel on anything. That is what add replayability and roleplay.
A player can roleplay that they are a sneaky thief in skyrim but at the end they play the game pretty much the same as they play if they roleplay a warrior. I bet all the people who roleplay a thief will not only sneak around and unlock doors/chests, but still dwell in blacksmithing, will still use magic, will still explore dungeons. The same with a warrior, or a mage, or any other character in Skyrim. The only difference is the player imagines he is a different character and do things differently, but in the end the character still does pretty much the same things as any other character. Now compare that with any older cRPG where a thief had to put skill points in thief skills to be a real thief, you would never have enough skill points to be a good thief and a good mage and a good warrior. That is what roleplaying is, your character has a role, not all the roles.

So what I found out is the CT Phipps love sandbox games and don't like cRPGs much because they are restrictive and remove player "freedom".

 

[Crni Vuk]

Com on guys! Let us be friendly to him! He might be a bit delusional, and in denial, and showing some serious cognitive disonance with Skyrim! But that is no reason to be unfriendly! At least we're having a discussion.

 

[CT Phipps]

Allow me to give a more nuanced review of Skyrim versus gushing praise:

What I love about Skyrim

Skyrim, for me, successfully did a great job of being as close to a fantasy world simulator as I'm very likely ever to experinece. I'm not a big fan of Virtual reality but in the concept of making me feel like I'm inside a new world, it certainly suceeded beyond anything I've experienced both before and since. I think the closest might have been Fallout 3 and New Vegas. Dragon Age certainly felt like a great video game NOVEL setting but didn't transport me the same way.

I felt the game did an amazing job integrating Dungeons and Dragonisms with the lore as well as setting. They're not just Goblins, they're the Falmer. They're not just zombie filled dungeons, they're the caerns of ancient Dragon worshipers which are being raised by the Dragon priests from the dead and defiled due to Alduin's return. You can basically explain just about any enemy you can encounter in the game's lore and that's really impresisve. You also have little mini-bosses like the Red Eagle and Potema who work well as justified enemies.

The combat in the game is also stuff which I felt worked very well as the first person hack and slash and magic gave a really visceral feel to the combat. I am wholly unapologetic about my love for power fantasy gaming and felt the Dragonborn gave me a sense of immense power as a demigod while also allowing conflict on a smaller scale with things like bandits to also work. I also like how while the levels scaled, they did so in a way which felt natural.

The characters of Skyrim also felt like archetypes which gave me enough characterization to fill in their backstory and ideas without becoming bogged down in two much exposition. You don't need to know much about the innkeepers but little tidbits like their spouses, conversation chatter, and so on made it work out for me. I can name dozens of characters I felt had good story arcs and which made an impression on me.

Certainly, the sheer size of Skyrim and the variety of locals about the place also impressed me. Solitude felt different from Karath from Windhelm to Riften. I also felt how the characters in each of the various holds had problems related to the holds central themes. You also had unexpected elements like the fact Riften was a place of corruption and Solitude was a place which had lost touch with much of its heritage.

But yes, I still remember the genuinely unexpected elements like the discovery of the Dwemer Steampunk aethstetic, the sheer massive size of Blackreach, the fact Paarthurnax is a Dragon, and how so many quests were unmarked but often went in bizarre but awesome directions like the fact the "haunted house" is haunted by Molag Bal or the fact virtually every citizen in Markath is a cannibal.

I also felt like Skyrim wasn't a single game but felt like five or six games stuck together with the Faction quests all feeling fairly epic and something which could have been the basis for their own game.

It may seem like a small fact, but I also loved acquiring the houses as they're some of my favorite "Cribs" in Video Games.

What I *DIDN'T* like about Skyrim

Skyrim has an absolutely shit Companion system. Honestly, speaking, if they'd reduced the number of Companions to maybe one per hold then maybe it would have given them time to develop them as actual characters but they're really just loads and loads of reskins with no real benefit to them except for having something to blast on occassion. You can't talk to them about anything substantial and the most development any of them get is Lydia's unhappy sigh and Mjoll NEVER SHUTTING THE HELL UP. There's a reason Serana is, hands-down, the most beloved companion and that's because she has a story.

The "marriage" system is also ridiculous with wearing a amulet to attract a spouse who is nothing more than a trophy to decorate your house. Which is something that irritates me a little even if I understand the appeal.

While I enjoyed all of the quests, where they collapse, they collapse hard. The inability to join the Silver Hand or refuse to be a werewolf isn't just a small issue. They're pretty big issues of role-playing which wouldn't have taken that much effort to fix. There's a similar issue about being unable to sack the Thieves Guild and taken them down. The fact you can do it with the Dark Brotherhood, one mission or not, makes these absences all the more glaring. I've also mentioned that being unable to tell Hermaeus Mora off was a weird storytelling blip in the Miraak story. I had a similar issue with Nuka World and I *LOVED* Nuka World.

It wouldn't be much either to say, "No, I don't want to be a Nightingale but I will help you defeat your traitor."

Alduin's weakness as a villain is also one which I've commented on agreeing with. The Civil War has some of its own issues. I think Alduin really needed more of a role in the story and I think a couple of more devastated cities would have been good for the Main Quest. I also think the game really dropped the ball by not having a scripted attack on Whiterun or Markath akin to the Attack by Ulfric Stormcloak to really bring home the danger. I think some scripted NPC deaths would have been good too.

Also, definitely would have loved a chance to speak with Alduin in either Dreams or at the Finale.

Likewise, I think the Civil War was lazily written with no actual attacks on the cities themselves versus taking over Forts instead. I would have preferred the attacks be on the cities themselves and the chance to kill the Jarls in charge of the fortresses so their predecessors can take over. That might have had some issues but I felt the Civil War lacked a lot of prominence outside of certain holds. The very least you could have done was have more missions for one side or the other.

I also felt like the Thalmor should have had a bigger role. The Thalmor Embassy should have had options to side with them or a chance to kill them all. The plot to elect a New High King also went nowhere. Another DLC centered around it would have been a good cap to the main storyline, IMHO.

I don't believe the game should have had a time limit but that "time" could progress in the story by having you complete quests, causing changes in the story and environment.

I still love the game but some tweaks would have made an already amazing game even better.

 

[simtam]

The game was designed to leave plenty of things unexplained, raising questions such as

Why won't the Dragons raid settlements alongside the Dragon Priests, to force the said settlements to worship Alduin or be destroyed?

but it's not that much interesting question to answer.

It goes in line with unreliable narrators and also quest givers insisting on ASAP urgency just in case the end is nigh; even though it won't be an end of the world that soon.

 

[Black Angel]

Which means, at the end of the day, Alduin is a shit villain, and the game is shit because it gave a false sense of urgency because the 'Dragons' are not a threat at all since a settlement inaccurately represented by mere two streets occupied by a handful of NPCs could defeat them so easily.

I'm not trying to invalidate the fact that you had fun, but everything you said 'good' about the game, it's just all in your mind.

Filthy LARPers, thinking they are playing 'RPGs'.

 

[CT Phipps]

Which means, at the end of the day, Alduin is a shit villain, and the game is shit because it gave a false sense of urgency because the 'Dragons' are not a threat at all since a settlement inaccurately represented by mere two streets occupied by a handful of NPCs could defeat them so easily.

Amazingly, saying so does not make it so. Your problem seems to be is you want a tightly scripted singular narrative versus one which allows players to play around. I don't agree that's essential to a good RPG and that I think it's actually pretty much antithetical to that. You could very easily argue the Attack on Hoover Dam doesn't occur until the player WANTS it to and that's bad storytelling.

I disagree because the game needs to let you do EVERYTHING first.

I don't think any of us will agree Caesar's Legion doing nothing until you're involved is a bad thing.

 

[Crni Vuk]

I disagree because the game needs to let you do EVERYTHING first.

But why?

 

[CerberusGate]

No, because that removes PLAYER FREEDOM to explore the world at your leisure. One of the things which makes Skyrim a good game. You don't have to deal with Alduin if you just want to play a thief or a wizard and can ignore that quest if you don't want to play it on your second or third playthrough. Skyrim is a toolbox to make your own fun and journeys--making it more story focused defeats the purpose of having fun your way.

It's like that goddamn awful time limit on finding the Water Chip.

The consequence of being too open is the loss of focus on story. I can't ever go back to Skyrim due to how bland the MQ is and how unimportant it is while part of Fallout 1's charm is how actually urgent the main quest was. If your home really was in danger, you would not be spending entire months picking up sidequests but rather remaining focussed on the main quest. Heck, Bethesda actually wanted to add consequences for the main quest's events back in Morrowind (there is a mod that does so... poorly) so the lack of proper consequence for putting off the main quest in Skyrim is more like a total regression.

It's like you can't think a game is great despite its flaws rather than ruined by them

It's one thing to like flawed games, it's another to ignore those flaws to gush over the good things. It is weird to me at least to constantly gush and dismiss flaws.

It's more healthy to recognise flaws even in something you love (every game I like and love, like my all-time favorite, Planescape: Torment, will always have flaws in them that I don't brush over (unless I'm trying to provoke the Fallout 4 trolls on this site )).

Amazingly, saying so does not make it so. Your problem seems to be is you want a tightly scripted singular narrative versus one which allows players to play around. I don't agree that's essential to a good RPG and that I think it's actually pretty much antithetical to that. You could very easily argue the Attack on Hoover Dam doesn't occur until the player WANTS it to and that's bad storytelling.

I disagree because the game needs to let you do EVERYTHING first.

I don't think any of us will agree Caesar's Legion doing nothing until you're involved is a bad thing.

A singular narrative with great writing will always trump open sandboxes to me any day. Being too open only causes a loss of focus and direction when it comes to the story that writers have created for the player. Simply leaving it open just screams of laziness to me (plus with all of the open world sandbox games these days, I can't say I have any fondness for open world sandboxes).

Plus a role-playing game is supposed to restrict players into a role, being open about it hurts the experience and forces one to use their imagination (or guides on UESP for people without any shred of creativity). Witcher 3 (one of the few exceptions to my general disdain of open world sandbox RPGs) did it right since the sidequests and witcher abilities all tie into enforcing Geralt's role as a witcher and making players role-play as witchers (i.e knowing how to prep for big hunts, knowing how to haggle, only knowing basic spells witchers have access to, possessing specialized gear that require routine maintenance etc.).

As for the battle of Hoover Dam, it will happen with or without player involvement if one looks at the events from a story perspective. All the pieces are in place, it's just that the player's involvement determines which faction will win or lose. It is still pretty poor story-wise for everything to center around the player's involvement but mechanically. it's sound.

 

[CT Phipps]

But why?

Let's assume a magical timer for New Vegas and basically the Battle of Hoover Dam will happen no matter what and the game ends. You're forced to have your character pick and choose what he's going to be a part of rather than being able to enjoy the game your way. You could argue that adds "urgency' but I'm not sure "urgency" is anything anyone really gives a shit about.

I want to explore and enjoy every little bit of the worlds we've found ourselves in.

Part of this is for me a reflection on the fact there's three things here:

1. The PC who is subject to the narrative law
2. The Developer
3. The Player who is directing them

I generally favor wide-open sandboxes with narrative flow determined by quest completion.

 

[CerberusGate]

I'm not sure "urgency" is anything anyone really gives a shit about.

Uh... then why are there forums with people who want actual urgency in games? Just saying that over-generalizing player bases are not the right response to such points.

 

[CT Phipps]

Uh... then why are there forums with people who want actual urgency in games? Just saying that over-generalizing player bases are not the right response to such points.

Oh, I get that now, but it's still an alien concept to me. I don't think I've ever encountered it outside of here. Then again, I was a forumite at Bethesda before they ruined their lore and discussions for whatever the hell the new forums are.

Wide-open sandboxes are a thing I love.

I think the only time I ever felt it didn't work out was the transition to the Witcher 2 and witcher 3. I felt Witcher 3 was TOO big.

Then again, I'm one of those rare dissenters who considers it inferior to Witcher 2.

 

[simtam]

Alduin's weakness as a villain is also one which I've commented on agreeing with. The Civil War has some of its own issues. I think Alduin really needed more of a role in the story and I think a couple of more devastated cities would have been good for the Main Quest. I also think the game really dropped the ball by not having a scripted attack on Whiterun or Markath akin to the Attack by Ulfric Stormcloak to really bring home the danger. I think some scripted NPC deaths would have been good too.

Also, definitely would have loved a chance to speak with Alduin in either Dreams or at the Finale.

Or perhaps just Dreams of devastated cities.
If that is the best you can come up with respect to the main quest, that is.

 

[CT Phipps]

Or perhaps just Dreams of devastated cities.
If that is the best you can come up with respect to the main quest, that is.

I'm interestingly reminded of Dragon Age: Inquisition which is a game that I felt was ultimately underwhelming and disappointing. You get the chance to see what Corphyeus' "victor" looks like and it's a pretty fair seen but as soon as you don't see it, you lose a great deal of the villain's menace since you beat him at every turn. What made Darth Vader such an effective villain was he actually punched back rather than simply took everything the PCs did.

More games where the PCs get their butts kicked ow and then would be good.

Dishonored 1 benefited from having Corvo poisoned and dumped in a river for example.

 

[CerberusGate]

Then again, I was a forumite at Bethesda before they ruined their lore and discussions for whatever the hell the new forums are.

Ah... that explains a lot. Quick tip, if you head over the RPG Codex with this attitude towards dissent of Skyrim, you'll be torn apart by them. They really know their RPGs (mechanics and what not) so going over with only a love for what they describe as hiking simulators, will expose your lack of CRPG know-how.

Then again, I'm one of those rare dissenters who considers it inferior to Witcher 2.

Nothing wrong with that. I'm the opposite though, I thought 2 was the weakest of the trio of games and 3 fixed all of my issues with 2 though I agree that 3 gets too big at times (like Skellige).

The combat for 2 was not as good (rolling for instance creates too much distance, something 3 fixed with the hop), some of 2's prepping mechanics were nonsensical (not drinking potions during combat?!), the story felt too short (necessitating 2 playthroughs to get all of your money's worth).

 

[CT Phipps]

Ah... that explains a lot. Quick tip, if you head over the RPG Codex with this attitude, you'll be torn apart by them. They really know their RPGs so going over with only a love for what they describe as, hiking simulators, will expose your lack of CRPG know-how.

I'm of the mind it's better to know what you like and don't rather than try to judge on an objective standard.

Nothing wrong with that. I'm the opposite though, I thought 2 was the weakest of the trio of games and 3 fixed all of my issues with 2 though I agree that 3 gets too big at times (like Skellige).

Ironically, my biggest objection to 2 was the fact you couldn't do both the King Henselt AND Saskia parts as Geralt is a witcher and could easily just go from one side to the next.

The combat for 2 was not as good (rolling for instance creates too much distance, something 3 fixed with the hop), some of 2's prepping mechanics were nonsensical (not drinking potions during combat?!), the story felt too short (necessitating 2 playthroughs to get all of your money's worth).

I agree with that last complaint whole heartedly. They were trying to add consequence and, instead, blocking off content.

 

[Black Angel]

Amazingly, saying so does not make it so. Your problem seems to be is you want a tightly scripted singular narrative versus one which allows players to play around. I don't agree that's essential to a good RPG and that I think it's actually pretty much antithetical to that.

Stop misrepresenting what I say.

1. You're arguing that Alduin is a 'good' villain because his appearance gave you this 'sense of urgency', I pointed out he isn't because the game was designed so that players can go around lollygagging. And then you accuse me of wanting "a tightly scripted singular narrative" that prevents player freedom. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying I want the game, when it creates this sense of urgency (like making Alduin seems like a threat to be dealth with ASAP because he can resurrect long-dead Dragons and, therefore, had the capability to destroy settlements), to ACTUALLY reinforce that sense of urgency. If they want to make games where players can lollygag to their heart's content then DON'T create that sense of urgency. To an extent, this means Alduin is a shit villain. I'm giving a comparison to Fallout 1 because FO1 DID time-limit and, therefore, sense of urgency right.
2. I'm NOT saying that "tightly scripted singular narrative" and time-limit (like you thought I am saying) is "essential to a good RPG". I'm saying that in a good RPGs characters ought to have weaknesses, the world has to be reactive towards the character's actions (choices&consequences). Skyrim made it seems like Alduin was a threat that has to be dealt with ASAP, and you know what that means? That means, if the game allow the player to lollygag WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES, that means it's a shit game with a disconnection between narrative and system design, and also NOT an RPG.

You know what's antithetical? Making a game with the narrative hook of a threat that invoke a sense of urgency because if he's not dealt with ASAP, the game would be over, BUT then you design the game in a way so players can go lollygagging.

You could very easily argue the Attack on Hoover Dam doesn't occur until the player WANTS it to and that's bad storytelling.

Ah, but that's not the case. The bottom line is, before the Courier enter the picture:

• The Legion wiped out Nipton
• The Legion's spies have infiltrated the NCR's ranks
• The Legion nuked Camp Searchlight
• The Legion captured Nelson, and is currently skirmishing with the NCR at Camp Forlorn Hope
• Chief Hanlon already made the NCR restless with his false information
• The NCR began sending squatters across New Vegas
• and many more

The reason why the Second Battle of Hoover Dam isn't happening yet is because the entire conflict entered an indefinite state of stalemate between the warring factions. The Courier, through accomplishing a series of important feats, is deemed crucial to any of the factions, that thanks to the Courier's work the conflict can finally be escalated to its conclusion.

Compare that to Skyrim where Alduin was supposedly roaming the entirety of Skyrim, resurrecting Dragons left and right, and you want to tell me they HAVE to stay right where they are or lollygagging somewhere else, as to not prevent MUH FREEDUM!

I disagree because the game needs to let you do EVERYTHING first.

That kind of game is a sand-box type of game, not RPG.

I don't think any of us will agree Caesar's Legion doing nothing until you're involved is a bad thing.

Look at my point above about New Vegas. Before the Courier enter the picture, the Legion has already done MUCH to escalate their conflict with the NCR.

Let's assume a magical timer for New Vegas and basically the Battle of Hoover Dam will happen no matter what and the game ends. You're forced to have your character pick and choose what he's going to be a part of rather than being able to enjoy the game your way. You could argue that adds "urgency' but I'm not sure "urgency" is anything anyone really gives a shit about.

I want to explore and enjoy every little bit of the worlds we've found ourselves in.

Part of this is for me a reflection on the fact there's three things here:

1. The PC who is subject to the narrative law
2. The Developer
3. The Player who is directing them

I generally favor wide-open sandboxes with narrative flow determined by quest completion.

This is not even a valid argument because New Vegas was NOT made and designed as sandbox type of game.

I think the only time I ever felt it didn't work out was the transition to the Witcher 2 and witcher 3. I felt Witcher 3 was TOO big.

There's no such thing as TOO big when discussing ACTUAL open-world games, especially with all the advantages of the new technology we had these days.

You're just desperate in trying to praise Skyrim in an aspect it's EXTREMELY bad or trying to raises points where it's nonexistent.

 

[CerberusGate]

Ironically, my biggest objection to 2 was the fact you couldn't do both the King Henselt AND Saskia parts as Geralt is a witcher and could easily just go from one side to the next.

It made sense though that a route would be blocked off. After all, if Geralt seemingly took sides, the other would not take kindly to him and would not welcome his presence (plus Henselt was at war with Saskia so why would one allow an ally of the other in their territories..

I do think that Geralt should have stuck to following his Witcher neutrality though like with 1, siding with neither party. That's one thing 1 and 2 did right though; I wound up disliking all the factions and characters who are not friends with Geralt. The idea of only liking people in your circle of friends appeals to me.

I'm of the mind it's better to know what you like and don't rather than try to judge on an objective standard.

The problem is that you need a general baseline for an assessment. Judging everything based on how entertained you are by something does not make for a good assessment stndard since even horrid products (like Ride to Hell) can wind up being judged as good for how mindbogglingly bad it is which makes it entertaining to watch. The Room is another example from a different medium, it is horrid but entertaining due to how bad it was.

 

[CT Phipps]

It made sense though that a route would be blocked off. After all, if Geralt seemingly took sides, the other would not take kindly to him and would not welcome his presence (plus Henselt was at war with Saskia so why would one allow an ally of the other in their territories..

I do think that Geralt should have stuck to following his Witcher neutrality though like with 1, siding with neither party. That's one thing 1 and 2 did right though; I wound up disliking all the factions and characters who are not friends with Geralt. The idea of only liking people in your circle of friends appeals to me.

I agree. I liked iorvath and Roche but both are in a conflict which Geralt has no stake in.